GIM 1 Revised refreshed . updated . streamlined

1. MRAM . May 8, 2014 GIM 1 Revisedrefreshed . updated . streamlined

2. GIM 1 Review and Submission Requirements for Proposals Effective May 12, 2014

3. Principal Investigator (PI) The PI is responsible for ensuring each component of the proposal is complete, accurate, and meets all programmatic, administrative, and compliance requirements prior to its submission to OSP. The PI must provide the proposal on an eGC1 and indicate it is Ready to Submit to a sponsor, consistent with the requirements of GIM 19. The PI has made all assurances on the eGC1.

4. OSP In accordance with UW Executive Order 34, as authorized signing official and as delegated by the Vice Provost for Research, OSP approves, signs, and transmits proposals to external sponsors.

5. Today we will… • Define a proposal • OSP Review – when, what is included, what is not included • Standard Procedures • OSP Review Comments • Re-review • Submission • Resources for Campus

6. Proposal - Defined • An application submitted by the UW on the recommendation of the PI to an external sponsor seeking funding or other support for a project. • Generally, a proposal contains: • Scope of work • Budget • Budget justification • Collaborator letters of intent • Other sponsor-required documentation

7. Proposals – Definition Con’t. • Proposals are applications that are typically submitted in competition with other applicants. • Usually in response to a broadly-distributed sponsor-issued solicitation for funding, request for proposal, or other funding opportunity announcement.

8. Competing Proposal Types • New • Resubmission • Competing Renewal • Competing Revision • Competing Supplement • Transfer to the University requiring application materials

9. What’s Not a Proposal • Progress Report (i.e., RPPR) • After-the-Fact (ATF) • Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trial • Sponsored Program related Agreement These are reviewed using review criteria applicable to the item.

10. OSP Review Begins: • When eGC1 is in “In OSP” Status • The program information in eGC1 is complete and consistent with associated proposal Ready to Submit (RTS) may be answered either Yes or No

11. eGC1 Returned Without Review • Incomplete eGC1s – fields left unanswered so as to prevent meaningful review • eGC1s containing significant inconsistent info with the attached proposal • eGC1s that do not contain proposal documents NOTE: The “IN OSP” date for these eGC1s will not be counted as meeting GIM 19 deadlines.

12. OSP Review Criteria for Competing Proposals

13. Why Those Criteria? • Proposal meets institutional policies • Consistent treatment by OSP Reviewers • Able to make the necessary representations, certifications and assurances to an external sponsor • Manage UW institutional risk • Ensure a successful submission to the sponsor • Ensure hard deadlines can be met

14. OSP Does Not Review (1 of 2) • Grammar, spelling, sentence structure, jargon, scientific and technical terminology, punctuation, and abbreviations. • Grantsmanship, including strategy, persuasiveness, and significance. • Scientific and technical merit. • Correct application of non-research related UW policies, such as academic human resource rules. • Academic value of the research activity. • Reasonableness of the commitment of faculty and staff effort, and possible impacts to teaching and other obligations.

15. OSP Does Not Review (2 of 2) • Facilities and resources listed are available for use. • Accuracy of salaries listed for individuals, including faculty and staff. • Sufficiency, adequacy, appropriateness, and accuracy of the budget for the proposed research/activity (see GIM 2). • Department or School/College PI eligibility rules. • Debarment, suspension or ineligibility status of key personnel. • Qualifications and training of personnel to carry out the proposed research or other activity.

16. OSP Relies on PI Assurances Assurances and Certifications are made by the PI when he/she approves the eGC1 • Proposal is Ready to Submit (when RTS = yes) • Necessary SFI disclosures made per GIM 10 • Key personnel are not debarred, suspended • Statements are true, accurate and complete • Responsible for scientific conduct • University policy will be followed

17. Criterion 1 The Proposal meets eligibility requirements. • Limited Submission • PI not listed on the OSP Closeout Delinquency List Other examples: Sponsor requires that PI has certain degree; that UW qualifies as applicant entity type specified by Sponsor (e.g. “IHE” versus “must be 501(c)(3)”)

18. Criterion 2 The proposal meets sponsor formatting, page limit, and technical requirements and the business data is correct. • Sponsor-specific documented requirements are met so submission via a system is expected to be successful. • UW institutional data is accurate.

19. Criterion 3 The proposal meets sponsor’s specific budgetary requirements. • The budget is within limits imposed by sponsor. • Items of cost listed in budget are not explicitly deemed unallowable by sponsor.

20. Criterion 4 F&A costs are calculated in accordance with GIM 13 unless sponsor publishes a cap, the sponsor is listed on the non-profit list, or an F&A waiver is granted. Examples: off-campus location is using off-campus rate; split rates are appropriate per rate agreement; if F&A is not included in budget, dept has provided a published sponsor policy or has an F&A waiver in place.

21. Criterion 5 Proposal meets cost share requirements. • If mandatory or prohibited by sponsor, proposal is consistent with this requirement. • If cost-share presented, it is intended as cost-share by the PI/dept. • All cost share (mandatory and committed) is supported by approval by the cost-sharing UW unit on the eGC1 or if third-party cost-share, a letter of commitment from third-party.

22. Criterion 6 All proposed subrecipients meet the documentation requirement in GIM 7. • Subawardee documents are provided on eGC1: • Letter of Intent or Facepage signed by institutional official • Scope of work • Budget • Budget justification • Any sponsor-required documents

23. Criterion 7 Requisite compliance approvals are met. • SFI disclosures are completed per GIM 10. • Human Subjects, Animal Subjects – JIT or if we certify we have approval, that approval is in place. • Sponsor specific regulatory assurances/certifications can be made. • We are not submitting to an entity within a country under a comprehensive embargo.

24. Standard OSP Procedures • We use the seven (7) criteria for review. • Comments by OSP will be sent to the PI and Department Contacts after initial review: • Required changes – must take place prior to submission to the sponsor • Recommended changes – are recommended by OSP based on its review to enhance compliance or responsiveness

25. Re-Review • If a proposal is reviewed and changes are requested, the proposal will be re-reviewed when it is routed back to OSP, but this is limited to: • Programmatic additions comply with formatting • OSP Reviewer Comments were addressed We encourage campus to acknowledge all changes (required and recommended) in the order they were presented in our Review.

26. Example of Campus Response • OSP – Failure to received Limited Submission Committee approval will preclude submission of the application. Please attach the Committee’s approval to the eGC1. • Campus – Please see letter now attached • OSP – Use of special characters in the File Name is known to cause Errors upon submission via Grants.gov, per SF424 Guide. Please rename. • Campus – The attachment has been renamed and uploaded • OSP – Cost-share is prohibited by the sponsor per the funding announcement, however, the budget/budget justification reflects effort on the part of ___ without a commensurate request for salary. Please revise the budget to remove the cost-share commitment. • Campus – We have included a salary request for ___’s effort • OSP - Missing Letter of Intent , signed by the authorized official, from Yale. A letter from Yale’s PI does not suffice. • Campus – letter is now included (we were waiting on Yale)

27. Timeline OSP Review comments are provided or an OSP touchback to PI/dept is provided in 2 business days E.g. Arrives “In OSP” on Monday afternoon; response from OSP by end of business Wednesday, e.g.: • Full review with OSP Reviewer Comments • I am in the middle of reviewing your Proposal; I will provide reviewer comments momentarily • I have been assigned your proposal for review because I am on coverage for __. I will be providing my Review Comments shortly.

28. Submission to Sponsor • Must give OSP access to proposal in sponsor system, if applicable (e.g.Fastlane) • OSP will upload* copy of submitted version to eGC1; this is the system of record. *Sometimes we need the full submitted copy from PI/dept, if sponsor system precludes access to final submitted version by anyone other than PI.

29. Thank you Before finalizing this policy and guidance, significant feedback and testing was performed. • OSP Pilot Group – tested review criteria • Dean & Dept Group provided feedback • Report given to the Faculty Council on Research (FCR)

30. Survey Coming • To measure the effectiveness of the new policy, guidance and process • eGC1 Admin Contacts for competing proposals arriving in OSP between May 13th and June 5th will receive a survey

31. New Web Resources • New OSP Prepare Proposal webpages (phase I). • Additional pages are coming this spring/summer; MRAM overviews of content will be provided.

32. MRAM Your feedback or questions